The Great Dane is at breaking point in Europe. Many people think that a split into two breeds is unavoidable; some would welcome it even, as the only possible option in order to resolve the current crisis. The breed is already practically divided between two distinctly different types, both exhibited at FCI shows, not always simultaneously, though the occasional mingling does happen in major events like World and European Winner shows. Usually the type of the entry reflects the judge. So, evidently, not all judges serve the standard. (This must surely be a goodly candidate for the ‘understatement of the year’ award).

German Champion 1928 Pankgraff – European Great Dane ideal in the 50s.

The classic or standard type still represents the majority in the Nordic countries, while a much heavier, coarser deviation, or Hyper-Type, dominates Club events and some all-breed shows on the continent, particularly in France and countries in the South and East of Europe. Germany itself, central Europe, Holland, Switzerland et al present a mixed lot, at times favoring the Standard or the Hyper, depending on the preference of the officiating judges. There is also a growing population demonstrating mixed tendencies, so-called ‘moderate‘ Hyper-type or borderline Danes, still presenting a drift towards the heavy mastiff morphology but not quite yet grossly extreme.

The Standard and the Hyper type dogs are rarely combined in breeding, so in reality there is already a partition in place, effected by breeding selection bias favoring two diametrically opposing phenotypes. There are some exceptions, attempts from the hyper side of the divide to moderate or even return to the classic type using standard dogs, or to achieve something in between, yet these are few and far between (and even then it’s unclear if the real motives are to restore the breed or to merely pander to judging favoritism; so, such trends may prove to be rather fickle and changeable over time, following the latest fashion). Conversely, there is a tendency from the standard side to use heavier or moderate Hyper type dogs, in order to produce a style that appeals to both judging preferences, or to add so called ‘substance’ (mass) to the classic type Dane. This taste for bulkiness & ‘cobby’ (draft horse type, as opposed to thoroughbred type, which is closer to the Dane’s ideal body type) individuals has been steadily gaining popularity even in the Standard Type strongholds. Overall breeding selection therefore is effectively shifting, pulling the Great Dane type towards the heavier end of the spectrum; and this has been going on for quite some time. Showing, or more precisely, conformation assessment, i.e. judging, has become the main and far too important driver of breeding choices; collectively and cumulatively, show results and judges are what’s steering the breed, way more than any other factor. If we take a good look at the Great Dane’s progress as a breed in Europe, in the last thirty or forty years, objectively, we can’t even remotely conclude that the course has been successful, sound or safe.

Again there are some bright exceptions, breeders who consciously strive to restore physical fitness and avoid the health problems and shortened lifespan associated with exaggeration; no doubt experience gained from trial and error led to realism and moderation; tragically, and by no means exclusively in our breed, fatal inherited health defects are so widespread that breeding has become a minefield. Infertility in male dogs, small litters, puppy mortality and temperament issues are on the increase, indicating that, in some regions at least, Great Dane populations are already experiencing inbreeding depression. DCM exists in such a vast number of pedigrees that to find a ‘safe’ male to use is becoming extremely difficult. It’s even more difficult in a breed that is already ‘old’ at five or six years of age and so using older sires or waiting until a bitch is over five years of age to breed her presents other problems. And yet we are still to see a world-wide health survey in the 80+ countries of the FCI – or a European survey, at least. [Recommended reading: the health surveys published by The Kennel Club (UK) IN 2004 and 2014, as well as the surveys conducted by the Great Dane Club of America and the Australian Great Dane community, also the all-breed mortality study conducted in Sweden].

Some breeders who have realized the dangers from a diminishing gene pool are taking desperate measures – mixing standard Danes and heavily overdone dogs, with variable results. This in itself is a problem, because it has the potential of ‘fixing’ undesirable traits even on generally standard-looking individuals. The drift towards the hyper-end of the spectrum is so well established in parts of Europe, that for some breeders it would be unthinkable to do such outcrosses using classic type dogs instead, from other regions and bloodlines: they are afraid they would lose ‘type’ and thus the progeny would be unsuccessful in European show rings. Additionally, the lack of a widespread practice of health testing in the UK prevents the potential benefits of using more British-bred Danes elsewhere. So in effect we are witnessing a multiple fragmentation of the breed in smaller sub-population islands, that practical difficulties, long-rooted perceptions & prejudice are making difficult to interconnect and exchange genetic benefits between.

photos R. Stolzewski

This situation is extremely critical for a breed already segregated by color varieties, of a giant size (a factor that poses its own complications) and popularity that is a double-edged sword, making it a status symbol and putting it in the hands of many who are not suitable or who blatantly exploit it. We need to realize that exhibiting and winning at shows is today what is shaping the breed as it guides selection bias to this or that direction and favors the popular sire syndrome. Breeding for performance, working ability, physical fitness and even temperament (i.e., steady nerves and a good mental equilibrium, instead of dogs that are too ‘soft’ to handle even mild pressures in normal day to day stimuli), has largely or even totally been replaced in our breed, as it happened with many others who are no longer working, by breeding primarily for dog show success. And that could have been well and good, if the breed standard was adhered to and if an effective framework, serving soundness of mind and body, genetic health and viability, had been implemented as an essential and fundamental basis of a holistic, instead of primarily morphological, assessment. The so-called ‘breeding confirmation’ or suitability for breeding evaluation system that applies in some European countries represents such an attempt; yet objectively, examining the results over decades, we can only say that the attempt has failed. There are many dogs that, despite of displaying untypical conformation (in the words of Prof. Denis, “lacking type”), disqualifying faults or unacceptable temperament, they have been approved – or even recommended – for breeding. Judges are clearly not doing their duty to the breed but making favors to their friends – or are simply inadequate – yet there is no control over such actions. (The show system operates on the premise that results will ‘even out’ over time and even if one judge makes a mistake the next few shows will correct it; this may be true but it doesn’t apply on single events such as approval for breeding; the judges who are employed for such crucial assessments are specialists in the breed usually, but even that is not a guarantee of erring on the side of caution). Health and longevity have not improved, they haven’t even been maintained at the same level – on the contrary, they have deteriorated – and conformation is at a crossroads.

In his foreword for the Illustrated standard publication of the Deutsche Doggen Club 1888 e.V. in 2011, the president of the DDC, Mr. Gügel (breeder of the famous Heiko von der Burg Thann, the dog selected as the model of excellence for the Club’s centenary figurine), had this to say:

“The (standard) of the Great Dane stayed the same in most of its parts, even if sometimes with different wording, especially the definition of the general appearance hasn’t changed. But if one compares the Champions of earlier times with the Champions of today one can see obvious differences. The bodies are bulkier today and the heads heavier. We haven’t paid enough attention to the angulations and the movement. So faults appeared which we don’t recognize anymore today. That’s something we have to change together: the officials of the clubs, the judges and the breeders. It is not our task to only manage the breed. We have to preserve and promote it and protect it from an over-interpretation of the standard. Expertise and sound judgment is therefore recommended. It was the goal of the founding of the EUDDC Club in 1981 to join all friends of the Great Dane for a uniform interpretation of the standard. (…) Judged objectively we haven’t managed to achieve this goal in the last 25 years. Some countries still prefer very different phenotypes.”

The factors that are at work resulting in a fundamental change in Great Dane phenotype in Europe, show some similarities as well as differences with what causes the drift towards Hyper-Type in other breeds. Some of these factors are systematic manifestations in pedigree dog breeding since the practice began and others have made their first appearance in the sixties. We must have some much needed open discourse on the subject, if we (meaning, all the people who care about the breed) are indeed serious in our intent of restoring and preserving the Great Dane, as the DDC President urged and as is our duty – to the dogs themselves and to the public that is keen to adopt Great Danes and not ‘Daniff’ substitutes.

About the common cliché of ‘improving the breed’ or ‘betterment of the breed’:

In my opinion that is a much repeated lie and misunderstanding. You can’t ‘improve’ breed type. That is, and this point must be pondered, understood and digested, a fallacy. It has no meaning. Once type is established in a breed of dogs, there is no improvement. Breed type by definition is the breed. Saying that you improve something means that you are not satisfied with it so you are changing it. How could you, for example, ‘improve’ Greyhound type? By making the Greyhound look like a Saluki or a Borzoi? Well that’s valid and in fact many breeds began this way, by people adapting types to their own practical requirements, climates and working needs – but when they do, these new breeds are not the originals any longer and they are given a new distinctive name. This new breed, the Spanish or the Polish or the whatever ‘greyhound’ type is no longer THE Greyhound BREED. So no, you can’t ‘improve’ Breed Type. Breed Type is everything a Breed IS, is the breed’s defining identity, regardless of the wording of standards. Even if there weren’t written standards at all, we would (or should) still be able to recognize a Dane as a Dane (or a large, smooth-coated boarhound), a Greyhound as a Greyhound, a Mastiff as a mastiff and so on. And you would be able to recognize varieties or derivatives, but you would not, if you knew the first thing about dogs’morphology, mistake a greyhound for a mastiff or a wolf dog for a bulldog, a spitz for a spaniel or vice versa. So you either breed to the type as established by the breed founders in the standard, or you essentially change it to something else, something that was never intended in the first place and is alien to the breed’s essence.

What you can improve is individual dogs’ shortcomings – in their progeny; you can improve on their performance, their structure, some regions where they are not well-made; so you can improve type within a breed, by raising the quality level of the individual dogs and the population gradually towards the desirable breed type. What you can’t ‘improve’ is a breed TYPE without fundamentally altering it – unless there was something wrong with it in the first place; if that was the case, there has to be consensus and an acceptance by all those involved that the breed TYPE needs to change for x, y, z valid reasons; if and when such a consensus is reached, then the standard is altered and again everyone is supposed to start following the new standard. Have we ever reached such consensus in our breed? Has our opinion ever been asked? Was there a consultation, a discussion, a vote? Had there been any public submissions to be examined and argued openly among the breed’s keepers, about a need to change the Great Dane breed type drastically and fundamentally, to shift it towards this or that direction so that it no longer represents a golden medium between a mastiff and a greyhound and neither of the two extremes? (see). I don’t remember and I can’t find any evidence of such an event.

The President of the DDC confirms that the breed type / the breed standard, “has not changed, has not been altered in its fundamental parameters”. So what happened? Why and how and on whose authority did a group of people decide that they can take off in a different direction, dragging the breed to their heels? When and why standard type and soundness went out of fashion and at whose orders? And why should we, the majority of the breed’s custodians and keepers, who haven’t strayed, respect the wishes of this ‘junta’, of this hyper-type promoting & self-serving cabal, to keep calling their breed Great Dane, when it obviously is not? Why do we have to entertain an arbitrarily and inappropriately enforced take over, effectively a veritable coup to establish a status quo, without due process and democratic consensus? They can take off in any direction they wish – they are free agents – but they can’t carry the breed off with them; it’s not their property. The breed is nobody’s property. They can call their dogs anything they wish – but there is already a Great Dane and it’s not for the taking, not for usurping and not for distorting to suit some people’s bizarre tastes and ridiculous interpretation of what the Apollo of dogsis. The Apollo referenceis important because it refers to a specific body type – neither weedy nor heavy or coarse, neither a windhound’s nor a mastiff’s – and that is exactly why this definition was retained in the standard. It’s the breed’s last line of defense against total mastiffication.

German Ch. Dolf v.d. Saalburg, born 1924

The breed standard gives a general appearance description that clearly excludes unsound, unbalanced, untypical, coarse, dysfunctional, overdone and disfigured dogs from being acceptable within the Great Dane breed. The Great Dane is supposed to be a dog of perfect equilibrium between strength and elegance, possessing both in the ideal degree. Breed standards were put in place precisely to safeguard the breed(s) from deviations and misconstructions. I personally have absolutely nothing against changing standards or standard areas that are erroneous, harmful, hyperbolic, inaccurate or inappropriate. But there are due procedures to be followed, democratic debates and scientific consultations to be had, in order to check the validity of any such proposed changes and to achieve agreements, to avoid dichotomy and to protect the breed’s integrity in the process, from the effects of yet another major loss of genetic wealth. Unfortunately that is precisely what has been allowed to happen under unwise and ineffective monitoring of trends in the last thirty or forty years and with inexplicable kowtowing to irregular and divisive fractions and fashions. The breed has been de facto altered and is at the pointing of breaking in two while we’ve been asleep at the wheel.

What was wrong with the original, classic Great Dane type? Let the accusers speak up, present their case and see if they can convince us with rational arguments and documented facts. Let them prove their views are correct, if they can. What is their evidence? What have they to propose that could be valid, that could be better? In what way are their cumbersome, mastinoid pachyderms ‘improved’ in comparison to our Great Danes? They are unfortunate disabled dogs, painful even to look at. What was so wrong with the breed, to cause some to betray it, and change it beyond recognition? Absolutely nothing was wrong. They were moderate, workmanlike, functional and beautiful dogs. They had the beauty of fitness for purpose. The breed was established by putting into the melting pot a variety of landraces and phenotypes, with the crystal clear intention and expressed written instruction within a perfectly reasonable breed description to standardize a population within these essential, fundamental and specific parameters: “The Great Dane combines in its overall appearance size, power and elegance […]. It does not have the heaviness and clumsiness of the Mastiff, nor the lankiness and light weight reminiscent of the Greyhound’s shape, but holds the middle ground between either extreme”.

By the “golden years” of the 1920s & 1930s (and that’s why people need to study the breed’s history) breed type had already been beautifully achieved, fixed and universal. The German Siegerin was Westminster champion and the Westminster champion was German Siegerin. Something must have gone wrong along the way since, because such a thing is not likely to happen today – 90 years later. Is the breed richer or poorer because of such a divisive state of affairs? who has strayed from the original and why? I leave the reader to decide. It wasn’t even that long ago when American-bred dogs could win in Scandinavia and Britain and British-bred or Scandinavian-bred dogs could win in America; last year an Australian-bred bitch was a top winner in the UK and Danes of Nordic breeding and style were winning in Holland. Can an American-bred or Australian-bred or a Danish-bred dog win in France today though? Or in some other EuDDC & European shows? And why not? Can a French-bred ‘Daniff’ win in Finland or in Canada? Or should it even?

All we had to do almost a century ago already was maintain the type and safeguard it like the apple of our eye, breeding sound dogs conforming to the standard, proceeding with caution and moderation. But people strayed instead – for their own selfish and self-serving reasons, in pursue of glory and influence and profiteering. So now they can advertise their studs and puppies as ‘authentic’ and ‘original’ Euro- Danes, claiming they are an ‘evolution’ of ‘true’ type and exporting them to unsuspecting fools around the world. Ka-chink, goes their cash register…

It has happened in many breeds – one look at the modern GSD for example makes you wonder if that was really the vision of von Stephanitz. Or if the modern continental Boxer was what Frau Stockman would approve of. I think they would be scathing in their criticism of the evident deterioration. Why is it, that every time a breed reaches global status, and good quality dogs are produced in various regions around the world, some small group of people somewhere in a little office high up on an ivory tower are mumbling, “this is not good – we have to make some changes again, our products aren’t selling, we’re losing our monopoly“? The answer is pretty obvious – and it has some shocking results…

Breed type, as a matter of fact, is established very quickly – in a few generations – and after that every attempt to ‘improve it’ by dragging the breed away from the original, moderate, natural and efficient model is no more than distortion and deviation, committed by people who are too arrogant and too ambitious to follow the standard. The further away a breed is driven from what is efficient, ergonomic and biomechanically sound, the worse the effects on soundness, health and longevity will be. But to be able to see and make valid observations and objectively evaluate the breed over time, we need to be both studious and sincere. We need to know the original standards and what was laid out in them and why. To know where we are, we need to know where we came from. Unfortunately, a large percentage of people in the breed today, younger people, have not had this opportunity – either because they neglected it themselves, or because it was not offered. Old books are out of print. Club websites are geared mainly towards depictions of the current winners. One is trying to find the original standards and they are nowhere to be seen and studied. Those omissions are fundamental errors creating crucial gaps in education. They are probably not intentional, but they are detrimental nevertheless. That was part of the motivation behind this blog and that’s why all the originalversions & current standards are included here for the benefit of the readers.

So we can cast our eyes back and wonder – why? Why would anyone in their right mind want to do this to the Great Dane – or to any dog?

Share this:

Like this:

Post navigation

39 thoughts on “the Dane & the pseudo-dane”

I am heartbroken to see so many unsuspecting first time owners being duped into buying these “Euro” types and not knowing they are not true Danes and they are in for some heavy vet bills and heartache. I have been suggesting to my own local club that we ask the parent club to create an additional registry for dogs that are bred to the standard. The AKC has failed purebred dogs miserably by registering byb/s, puppy mills and corporate dog breeders and not standing with the pure breed dog clubs. The uninformed family wanting to purchase a purebred puppy today does not know where to turn to find a reputable breeder, or even how to distinguish a reputable breeder.from a byb. We definitely need to run ads in dog magazines under the Great Dane heading saying “Buyer Beware” and providing the website to the parent club where information should be easily found aimed at newbes. There are far too many unscrupulous breeders purposefully breeding unsound dogs for profit and it is a numbers game. When the majority of Danes are bred to look like mastiffs we have a huge problem and we need to fight back right away with everything we have. The future of the Great Dane depends on it.

Agreed, the same can be said in my breed (German Shepherds). I cannot tell you how many people tell me they have been unable to find anyone with dogs who aren’t over angulated in the rear or have solid nerves. Just as bad are so many winning in Germany who’s backs look like a camel and who’s movement when walking appears to mimic a stiff robotic pistoning in slow motion. It is painful to watch. How can anyone look at this atrocity and believe it could be a good thing? How can people ignore the fact a dog has a low stress threshold and weak nerves and breed it anyways? It has become “the norm” among too many breeders of American Conformation line dogs to accept the fact that ears will need to be taped to stand. Not in our breed it isn’t!! They speak of the best methods used on dogs whom they’ve kept for their breeding program and send out a printed sheet of instructions for all puppy buyers. What madness is this? Where will it end? When you try to correct them they become hostile, hurling insults and scoffing at what you’ve said. I’ve been banned from numerous facebook groups for GSDs because I politely challenged someone to cite their sources when they made remarks that were so full of misinformation it made my head spin. Remarks that supported their unethical breeding practices of course. Very sad indeed.

Personally I Like the Euro Danes. I see nothing wrong with the American version I think they all are Beautiful dogs very personable and Love being in your Life right next to you. I do believe as American’s we still have that choice or do we?

BRILLIANT article. Well said!! I am appalled at the dogs who are winning in some show rings today in so many breeds. This subject has come up time and time again over the years but never in such a comprehensive manner. Sharing far and wide and cannot wait for the second part!

Why can’t people just be happy with what they have. Everyone needs to have the biggest dog, the fastest car, the loudest radio/stereo. This dog is perfect the way it is! I can’t believe that someone wants to change perfection. Sad to think the breeds change so much.

Ever since the breed called originally “Deutsche Dogge” and specified in the breed standard ( FCI no. 235 – actual version updated and published 2012 ) we face major and minimal differences in phenotypes. My family owned (and bred since the 1970es) Deutsche Doggen since the 1920ies. Subjective ideas on the breeds appearance have always existed. Breeders, special breed judges, conformation judges influence the breed’s appearance to different extents. The present discussion is not new. The bewarer of the FCI standard is Germany and it had been quoted in this thread before that the updated standard has not altered the major parameters. Let us not forget that not all countries are full FCI members.
The FCI’s Standard Commission demanded in 2012 to amend standard descriptions where health threats could possibly become a consequence of the standard’s demands. The public had been reacting very severely upon health problems of one or the other breed during the past decades. The presently existing worldwide population of Deutsche Doggen /Great Danes portray often vast differences in interpretation, ideas. In Germany we have a powerful natinal law for the protection of pets. Neutering, spaying, declawing etc. are only legally permitted in case of demand by veterinary attestation. Convenience “alteration of appearance” appear illegal.
In my opinion it is up to breed clubs ( in case they exist ) to educate prospective breeders, puppy buyers and the public. I do not consent a “freedom of choice” if breeding is at stake.
I have been participating in the EuDDC councils and meetings for almost 20 years, was EuDDC Secretary 2008 – to 2014 and was DDC Board Member from 2011-2015. I listened to national “likes and dislikes” for a long timespan. My concern is the health, soundness and true character of appearance of our beloved breed. The breed standard gives the orientation.

the country that is in charge of the Breed Standard also has the responsibility to safeguard the breed from deviations. The breed clubs in other – non FCI – countries have managed that quite well over a hundred years or so – in Britain and North America, in Australia for example, we don’t see such a breed type divide like we see in Europe. The Nordic countries too, within the FCI, have managed quite well to keep the breed type intact. Why is it then that the same can’t be achieved everywhere in Europe? In France a very different type has been allowed to become the norm – and the drift towards the hyper-type has been allowed to get out of control and contaminate other regions – in the South , East and South-Western countries. Even in Germany itself dogs that don’t / didn’t conform to the standard have been elevated to lofty positions as Champions, Club champions, sires or approval and popular sires. It’s clearly a matter of deficiency in education and control of the situation on behalf of the ‘central government’.

I had german danes for the last 46 years and was fortunate to have one of the oldest and best breeder in Germany vom schilfkolben who now would turn in her grave if she would see the new “type” I would not want any of these huge ugly mastiff like danes. it makes me cry to see what happened to this beautiful breed in parts of Europa.

This saddens me… I’ve been to Europe many times and to many shows… My danes are all imported from Europe..
Yes mine are mastiff looking and I’ve had many die at age 6
The word now in America is the European Great Danes do not live long
And as far as these judges go they either need to get on the right track or get rid of them.

we need to go back to the “standard” and not vary from it.
a “fade”, “who’s in or whatever the reason dogs achieve championship without coming close to the standard has to stop. if judges have a problem sticking to the standard they should be removed. there are many qualified breeders in many countries which can do the job objectively . I don’t know why so many people support and buy these dogs , they are not doing the breed any favor. is it not the ultimate goal to better the breed every time we have puppies
eve

Part of the problem is this. There is a large demand for Great Danes, and these “improved” ones are meeting the demand. It’s hard to find breeders of true Danes, and even harder to get breeding rights. Also many people want the big heads. It’s a matter of supply and demand. I don’t want a purple and orange piebald with a head like a Neo, but some people do. So if there’s a demand someone is gonna fill it.

What in gods name are they doing to the Great Danes. Not only are the NEW Danes ugly they are nowhere near the proper standard If you don’t want a Dane that conforms to the standard get another breed. And the judges are very much to blame for this These monstrosities should never win and I don’t care how well known the handler at the end of the leash is. The same thing is being done to the American show boxer. Long legs , fine bones ,elegant They are meant to be proud and powerful looking. Not a Wuss pup

Mastiffs were one of the major contributors to the development of the Great Dane from the original German breeders while developing and refining this breed. Those appalled by the “Mastiff” like appearances need to research the history of Great Danes and their early development. I’ve been a Great Dane lover/owner for over 35 years. Many of your pictures are more like comparisons between Great Danes w/ natural ears verses cropped ears. Also, currently in the U.S. it seems like the conformation shows are rewarding more under sized, extremely under weight, Great Dane Dogs (Champions 32″
tall and under 145 lbs. & Great Dane Bitches (Champions at 30″ tall and under 120 lbs.then ever before so I believe it’s more then just a European issue with the breed here? Are we attempting to develop a miniature Great Dane in the U.S. cause it sure seems that way to me!
Ever wonder why in America no Great Dane has ever won a Best in Show?

I do agree w/ you that many of the so called “European Great Danes” you posted here deviate greatly from the Great Dane Club of America Breed Standard in particular their over sized heads and extremely loose jowls.

the issue is not the GDCA Standard or even the fact they don’t comply to the FCI (European) standard – they do not comply to any Great Dane standard since the breed was founded and they are dysfunctional dogs with physical abnormalities.

There are many historical posts and illustrations in this blog and the issue with the breed in the US showing the opposite trend might be true, but the result of combining mastiff and sighthound is neither. There are modern mastiff x greyhound crosses and mastiff they do not resemble. The Great Dane is neither a mastiff nor a greyhound as stated in the original standard, plus it has been set in type from the time a standard was drawn and developed as Great Dane the Apollo of dogs ever since, so the mastiff features / type are not appropriate. Great Dane type is appropriate and that is precisely what is described in the Great Dane standards.

As far as North America goes their are still many large 36″ (91.44 cm) tall 200 pound (90.7 kilograms) dogs being shown so the trend isn’t getting smaller in North America but the judges at conformation shows tend to favor the much slimmer, shorter Danes which does no justice for the breed in my opinion.

the breed was considered a giant already at the beginning of dog shows, when dogs measuring 32 inches at the withers were seen as exceptional. The “bigger is better” is not a positive trend, favored by human taste that is impressed by size and prone to excess; the “bigger is better” fad leads to exaggerated physical features and lack of proper biological fitness. The biggest wolves are around the 31 – 33 inches in height. The medium-to-small end of the gigantic size in the canine form is therefore where natural evolution of wild canids points at and we would not be wise in pushing the natural limits upwards. One has to look at the dog as an entity fit for function not just as a purely decorative and pleasing to the human eye construction. The minimum heights adopted in the breed standards mean that these dogs are big enough. The larger ones are not necessarily better just because they impress or appeal to some for mere size. The proof of the pudding would be a practical test of which specimens are best at what the breed was bred to do – i.e., hunting large game, not just strutting their stuff in a show ring. And if we study these working dogs most fall within the average large (giant) size, as biomechanic efficiency parameters would predict. Of course we might encounter individuals of exceedingly large size that are well structured and functional, but these would be rarer across breeds; the majority of too tall individuals are often problematic in structure of the forelimb (specifically, too straight in shoulder). So in my experience and opinion, we have to exercise caution at both ends of the spectrum in our breeding goals – and in the show ring awards, as they tend to inform breeding selection.

they might be “true to standard” in conformation, but how can we attest that the larger specimens are actually better than the smaller (and still within standard size) individuals at what shaped the breed in the first place (its original function) ? Without a breed-appropriate working test we cannot “measure” functionality. So personal preference regarding size has replaced evidence and measurable facts, and a more holistic breeding selection (which would be informed by performance, not merely appearance).

Obviously the breeding stock for some of the European Countries Great Dane’s are larger boned, larger headed dogs & bitches. Will the world’s Great Danes split into different breeds or varieties? Probably yes, it’s happened to so many other breeds throughout the World. Look at the many different types of Spaniels & Terriers, etc. in the AKC, and other countries Kennel Clubs, perhaps it’s inevitable that Great Danes split into different types as well (and as you’ve stated, it’s already happening, just hasn’t been officially recognized.

It would be exceedingly destructive to split Great Danes into different varieties: that was a practice of days gone by, when knowledge of genetics was minimal and breed management was deficient, resulting in the problems we encounter today. The smaller and smaller populations thus separated would lose genetic diversity and therefore become biologically unfit, plagued by fatal genetic diseases and headed to extinction, much faster, at an accelerated rate. To counteract this very real threat to the survival of dog breeds, progressive Kennel organisations such as the Kennel Clubs in the Nordic / Scandinavian countries, as well as the Scientific Commission of the FCI (the world federation of kennel clubs with 94 national members to date) recommend the exact opposite approach : maintaining related breeds and in-breed varieties as interconnected genetic reservoirs, with open breeding between them, and have such provisions put into place.